The
pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual
liberty
"There is but one straight
course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Authoritarian Obamacare VS The Freedom To Enjoy Life’s
Risks by Chris Graham
“Your freedom is
likely to be someone else’s harm.” So said one Daniel Callahan of the Hastings
Center, a bioethics-research organization. He was referring to proverbial
Paul’s poor health decisions, such as eating too much and smoking, having a
deleterious effect on both Peter’s lungs and wallet. One of the rarely spoken-of secondary effects of the government’s new
involvement with virtually everybody’s health care, through Obamacare, is that
the government now has a vested interest in all of the health decisions we make
in our private lives. The government is in our kitchens, and if we take a
sandwich or a cigarette into the bedroom, there the government will be with its
prying eyes. If everybody is healthy, then government healthcare will cost
less. Of course, if the government were not involved with so many people’s
health, save those few truly poor, it wouldn’t need to nose in on what’s on my
dinner plate. Once again we see the
ineptitude of the federal government and its one-size-fits-all solutions: they
create more problems than they profess to aim to solve. But is there
something to the argument over public-smoking laws? Some independent studies
show second-hand smoke is not constant or concentrated enough to be harmful,
while other (usually government-funded) studies show that second-hand smoke can
be just as dangerous as direct smoking. Let’s go with the belief that
second-hand smoke is very dangerous. I
used to be a full supporter of public-smoking bans for this very reason. But
only recently did I change my mind when I realized the following: Life is
risky. Freedom is risky. By stepping out into the public world, I open myself
up to all the risks involved. If I’m out with my kid (as yet non-existent)
and someone is wearing a profane shirt or shouting vulgarities, I knew before
stepping out that people like that exist in public, and I knew there was the
possibility that by taking my kid out in public, I might expose him to some of
life’s uglier aspects.
~~~~~~
What’s Being Done About High Crimes from the Obama Admin?
Not a D@*N Thing!
It was reported in
the Washington Times back in August of last year. That’s right, in 2012,
before Obama was re-elected. The Obama
administration was selling arms to al Qaeda in Libya. Of course, who could
believe that? After all, it wasn’t reported on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC or in
the newspaper of record. The New York Times finally released the story
in December, after the election. What convenient timing was that? In a more
patriotic day, we used to call arming our enemies treason. A President can be
impeached for “high crimes”. Treason
would certainly fit the definition. But the amazing thing about the new
“transformed” America is that nobody gives a damn. After all, “Bin Laden is
dead and GM is alive.” What is even
more puzzling is that the point man in these arms deals was one Ambassador
Chris Stevens, who is now dead because of a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya
that occurred last September 11, 2012. Doesn’t anybody think that something
smells fishy here? Certainly,
security expert Frank Gaffney did. He was reported in the Washington Times last October, before the
election, “GAFFNEY: The real reason behind Benghazigate Was Obama gun-walking
arms to jihadists?” The story reported:
It
now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no
security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his
own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending
arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As
in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other
Shariah-supremacist groups … We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to
hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the
conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in
Syria.
~~~~~~
Women in
combat bad tactic Kathleen
Parker
It must be true what they say about women – that they are smarter, stronger, wiser and wilier than your average Joe. How else could one explain the magical thinking that apparently has prompted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to abandon all reason and lift the ban on women in direct combat?
This is a terrible idea for reasons too numerous to list in this space, which forces me to recommend my 2008 book, “Save the Males,” in which I devote a chapter to the issue. The most salient point happens to be a feminist argument: Women, because of their inferior physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival.
More on this, but first let’s be clear. Arguments against women in direct combat have nothing to do with courage, skill, patriotism or dedication.
Most women are equal to most men in all of these categories, and are superior to men in many other areas, as our educational graduation rates at every level indicate. Women also tend to excel as sharpshooters and pilots. But ground combat is one area in which women, through quirks of biology and human nature, are not equal to men – a difference that should be celebrated rather than rationalized as incorrect. Remember, we’re not talking about female officers of a certain age pacing the hallways of the Pentagon when we speak of placing women in combat, though perhaps we should be. My favorite bumper sticker remains: “I’m out of estrogen and I have a gun.”
We’re potentially talking about 18year-old girls, notwithstanding their “adult” designation under the law. At least 18-year-old males have the advantage of being gassed up on testosterone, the hormone that fuels not just sexual libido but aggression. To those suffering a sudden onset of the vapors, ignore hormones at your peril. Now, hold the image of your 18-yearold daughter, neighbor, sister or girlfriend as you follow these facts, which somehow have been ignored in the advancement of a fallacy. The fallacy is that because men and women are equal under the law, they are equal in all endeavors and should have all access to the same opportunities. This is true except when the opportunity requires certain characteristics. Fact: Females have only half the upper-body strength as males – no small point in the field.
Further to the fallacy is the operating assumption that military service is just another job. The rules of civil society do not apply to the military, which is a top-down organization in which the rules are created to maximize efficiency in killing enemies. It is not just another job that can be managed with the human resources department’s Manual on Diversity and Sensitivity. The argument that women’s performance on de facto front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved concerns about combat roles unwarranted is false logic. Just because women in forward support companies can return fire when necessary – or die – doesn’t necessarily mean they are equal to men in combat. Unbeknownst perhaps to many civilians, combat has a very specific meaning in the military. It has nothing to do with stepping on an IED or suffering the consequences of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means aggressively engaging and attacking the enemy with deliberate offensive action, with a high probability of face-to-face contact.
If the enemy is all around you – and you need every available person – that is one set of circumstances. To ask women to engage vicious men and risk capture under any other is beyond understanding. This is not a movie or a game. Every objective study has argued against women in direct combat for reasons that haven’t changed.
The threat to unit cohesion should require no elaboration. But let’s leave that obvious point to pedants and cross into enemy territory where somebody’s 18-year-old daughter has been captured. No one wants to imagine a son in these circumstances either, but women face special tortures. And, no, the rape of men has never held comparable appeal. We can train our men to ignore the screams of their female comrades, but is this the society we want to create? And though some female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have endured remarkable suffering, their ability to withstand or survive violent circumstances is no rational argument for putting American girls and women in the hands of enemy men. It will kill us in the end.
It must be true what they say about women – that they are smarter, stronger, wiser and wilier than your average Joe. How else could one explain the magical thinking that apparently has prompted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to abandon all reason and lift the ban on women in direct combat?
This is a terrible idea for reasons too numerous to list in this space, which forces me to recommend my 2008 book, “Save the Males,” in which I devote a chapter to the issue. The most salient point happens to be a feminist argument: Women, because of their inferior physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival.
More on this, but first let’s be clear. Arguments against women in direct combat have nothing to do with courage, skill, patriotism or dedication.
Most women are equal to most men in all of these categories, and are superior to men in many other areas, as our educational graduation rates at every level indicate. Women also tend to excel as sharpshooters and pilots. But ground combat is one area in which women, through quirks of biology and human nature, are not equal to men – a difference that should be celebrated rather than rationalized as incorrect. Remember, we’re not talking about female officers of a certain age pacing the hallways of the Pentagon when we speak of placing women in combat, though perhaps we should be. My favorite bumper sticker remains: “I’m out of estrogen and I have a gun.”
We’re potentially talking about 18year-old girls, notwithstanding their “adult” designation under the law. At least 18-year-old males have the advantage of being gassed up on testosterone, the hormone that fuels not just sexual libido but aggression. To those suffering a sudden onset of the vapors, ignore hormones at your peril. Now, hold the image of your 18-yearold daughter, neighbor, sister or girlfriend as you follow these facts, which somehow have been ignored in the advancement of a fallacy. The fallacy is that because men and women are equal under the law, they are equal in all endeavors and should have all access to the same opportunities. This is true except when the opportunity requires certain characteristics. Fact: Females have only half the upper-body strength as males – no small point in the field.
Further to the fallacy is the operating assumption that military service is just another job. The rules of civil society do not apply to the military, which is a top-down organization in which the rules are created to maximize efficiency in killing enemies. It is not just another job that can be managed with the human resources department’s Manual on Diversity and Sensitivity. The argument that women’s performance on de facto front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved concerns about combat roles unwarranted is false logic. Just because women in forward support companies can return fire when necessary – or die – doesn’t necessarily mean they are equal to men in combat. Unbeknownst perhaps to many civilians, combat has a very specific meaning in the military. It has nothing to do with stepping on an IED or suffering the consequences of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means aggressively engaging and attacking the enemy with deliberate offensive action, with a high probability of face-to-face contact.
If the enemy is all around you – and you need every available person – that is one set of circumstances. To ask women to engage vicious men and risk capture under any other is beyond understanding. This is not a movie or a game. Every objective study has argued against women in direct combat for reasons that haven’t changed.
The threat to unit cohesion should require no elaboration. But let’s leave that obvious point to pedants and cross into enemy territory where somebody’s 18-year-old daughter has been captured. No one wants to imagine a son in these circumstances either, but women face special tortures. And, no, the rape of men has never held comparable appeal. We can train our men to ignore the screams of their female comrades, but is this the society we want to create? And though some female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have endured remarkable suffering, their ability to withstand or survive violent circumstances is no rational argument for putting American girls and women in the hands of enemy men. It will kill us in the end.
~~~~~~
Hagel Urges US to Turn Over Powers to International
Courts
Chuck Hagel,
President Obama’s nominee for defense secretary, sits on the board of fund that
is the main financial backer of group urging the U.S. to join the U.N.’s
International Criminal Court, which could prosecute American citizens and
soldiers for “war crimes” and other offenses. WND previously exposed Hagel
serves on the board of the Ploughshares Fund, a George Soros-funded group that
advocates a nuclear-free world. The Ploughshares Fund has a long history of
anti-war advocacy and is a partner of the Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy
Studies, which has urged the defunding
of the Pentagon and massive decreases in U.S. defense capabilities, including
slashing the American nuclear arsenal to 292 deployed weapons. Aaron
Klein’s “Fool Me Twice” spells out Obama’s shocking, radical plans for the next
four years. Now WND has learned that
Hagel’s Ploughshares Fund is a major financial contributor to something called
the Connect U.S. Fund, or CUSF.
~~~~~~
Feinstein Says She Wants To Go After More Than Just
“Assault Weapons” by Tim Brown
Senator Dianne
Feinstein (D-CA) appeared on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday told
host Candy Crowley that the push for gun bans won’t just be about her alleged
“assault weapons.” Today, she basically updated her 1995 60 Minutes interview
where she said, “Mr. & Mrs. America, Turn ‘Em All In.” Feinstein
told Candy Crowely that it has “always been an uphill battle,” pointing to her
“assault weapons ban” bill. “This is the hardest of the hard,” she said. “Will
it only be ‘assault weapons’?” she asked. “No,” she declared, answering her own
question. “Most likely there will be a package put together.” “If assault
weapons is left out the package and I’m a member of the Judiciary, number two
in seniority, I’ve been assured by the
majority leader I’ll be able to do it as an amendment on the floor, which is
the way I did it in 1993,” she said. [Opportunity
Harry will not afforded to Republicans] “So that doesn’t particularly
bother me. What does bother me is I’ve seen weapons spawned and grown and now
in the hands of younger and younger people over these years.” Sen. Feinstein
said, “I think enough is enough. Do military style ‘assault weapons’ belong on
the streets of our cities? And the answer, according the United States
Conference of Mayors, according to major chiefs of police, according to the
largest police organization in the world, is absolutely ‘No.’”
Pardon me, but the
traitor Senator from California failed to mention the only thing that does
matter when dealing with this issue and that is “according to the United States
Constitution” the do belong in the hands of American citizens. Let me be blunt.
The Constitution doesn’t give a damn about any of the organizations she cited
and what they think. If she and these organizations think things need to be
changed why don’t they put forth an amendment to the Constitution? But they
don’t do that because they know better. Frankly, she and all those who have
taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and
have supported such measures as she has put forth should be put under arrest,
tried, and if found guilty of treason against the United States Constitution,
which shouldn’t be hard to prove, should be publicly executed for such actions.
While Feinstein
claims to have the support of these organizations, notice she does not have the
support of the one thing that does matter and that is the United States
Constitution.
She was asked if
she would concede that the weapons ban she has put forth is a “tough road.”
She conceded that it was a tough road, but said it was
because, “The NRA is venal.” This comes from one of the most corrupt
politicians warming a seat in the United States Senate!
“They come after you, ” she said. “They put together
large amounts of money to defeat you. They did this in ’93 and they intend to
continue it, while the opposite can take place too.”
When asked if the NRA was really “venal” or was it that
they simply disagreed with her on a matter of policy, Feinstein responded, “The
NRA has become an institution of gun manufacturers. This morning, on the front
page of the New York Times, I was reading about their program now to provide
weapons and training for youngsters from eight years old to fifteen years old
and this is supported by the gun manufacturers. In other words, here is a whole
other group of people that we can get these weapons to. They just don’t happen
to be adults, they’re children.”
The National Rifle Association is not an institution of
gun manufacturers. It’s an association of people who support the Second
Amendment. One hundred thousand gun manufacturers didn’t join the NRA last
month. Individuals did.
I certainly have
disagreed with the NRA’s Shield program, but I firmly believe in the NRA’s
program to train and educate young kids about gun safety and proper gun use. This will maintain the next generation so
that people like Dianne Feinstein fear those of us who properly understand the
Second Amendment and realize it is put there to defend ourselves against ogre
politicians such as herself, who are the real venal people in the matter,
gaining too much money and power from anti-gun lobbies to attack the United
States Constitution and in the process, attack the American people. Senator
Feinstein doesn’t have a clue that the
Second Amendment is to keep government and those in it, like herself, from
doing exactly what she wants to do and that is to eventually disarm the people
and rule over them. I have two words
for Senator Feinstein and any politician or federal government official who
wants our guns, “Molon labe!”
~~~~~
"[R]eligion
and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free
government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the
combinations of human society." --John
Adams
"[T]he current
and future role of the Bible in U.S. society is an often-debated topic. A new
release from Barna Group shows how this debate plays out regionally and takes a
look at how 96 of the largest cities in the nation view the Bible. ... Individuals
who report reading the Bible in a typical week and who strongly assert
the Bible is accurate in the principles it teaches are considered to be
Bible-minded. ... Regionally, the South still qualifies as the most
Bible-minded. ... This includes the media markets for Knoxville, TN (52% of the
population are Bible-minded), Shreveport, LA (52%), Chattanooga, TN (52%),
Birmingham, AL (50%), and Jackson, MS (50%). ... Easily the lowest Bible-minded scores came from Providence, RI (9%) and
Albany, NY (10%). ... The New England area is home to most of the markets in
the bottom 10 Bible-minded cities, including Burlington, VT (16%), Portland, ME
(16%), Hartford, CT (16%), Boston, MA (16%), Buffalo, NY (18%) and New York, NY
(18%). The remaining markets in the bottom 10 are primarily in the West and include San Francisco, CA
(16%), Phoenix, AZ (17%), and Las Vegas, NV (18%). ... See all 96 cities here.
... Whether you live in a city ranked in the top half of Bible-minded cities or
in the bottom half of Bible-minded cities, there are still tens of thousands of
people to reach regarding both the message of the Scriptures and their
importance. ... The key is to not merely
'preach to those insiders' but instead to equip and empower those who do
believe with a strong and relevant message to take out into their communities,
vocations and spheres of influence. They are the tipping point and can have
great influence on the greater city." --The
Barna Group
~~~~~~
Sharpton: ‘People do not have the right to unregulated
rights in this country’
Following a public
policy meeting of African-American leaders, National Urban League president
Marc Morial and National Action Network president Al Sharpton called for a new
national assault weapons ban, saying the
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be regulated. “The
Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not absolute. One cannot yell fire in a
crowded theater and hide behind the First Amendment,” said Morial when
asked by TheDC if he supports California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein’s assault
weapon ban bill “And we absolutely think
that the idea of banning a military style assault weapon, a weapon that I am
confident that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison never laid their eyes on, is
not inconsistent with the rights of those who self-protect, those who shoot,
who want to participate in sporting and hunting,” The 2nd Amendment was ratified on
December 17, 1791 along with the other nine amendments that make up the Bill
of Rights. While it is a very short amendment, its exact meaning in terms
of what types of weapons are protected is still in contention today. Text of
the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." Intersting, the debate is focused on
the type of weapon and conveniently leaves out the last four words. The question should be; "What did the
founding fathers mean when they inserted '..shall not be infringed...'?"
~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment